Turkish Young People's Optimism: Are Young Men More Optimistic or. Young Women More Realistic? Sengul Hablemitoglu and ... above (or below) the mean unless the distribution is. (forexample, of .... (âthere are effective responses for people in generalâ and .... given in Table 1, 2 and 3, separately for scales of male and.
World Applied Sciences Journal 5 (1): 42-53, 2008 ISSN 1818-4952 © IDOSI Publications, 2008
Gender Differences in the Influence of Egocentrism and Focalism on Turkish Young People’s Optimism: Are Young Men More Optimistic or Young Women More Realistic? Sengul Hablemitoglu and Filiz Yildirim Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, College of Home Economics, Ankara University, Turkey Abstract: This study was planned and conducted to define the gender differences in the influence of egocentrism and focalism (cognitive and motivational factors) on young people’s optimism and their perception of control which means “controllability of life”. This study was conducted face to face by interviewing a total of 263 university students in Turkey, consisting of 127 females and 136 males, who are studying in Ankara University. Three scales were taken into account in this study - unrealistic and future orientation scales have focalism and egocentrism factors; perception of control scale. In order to test the reliability of questionnaire, the findings were calculated by “Cronbach Alpha” as inner consistency coefficient. Each scale was found valid and reliable at the rate of 83 % - 93 %. The impact of two factors (egocentrism and focalism) related to gender on young people’s optimism was examined with “independent-samples t test”, it was used to define the gender differences in that.05,.01,.001 levels of used throughout the analysis. As a second analysis “spearman’s rank order correlation analysis” was used for the interaction among gender differences depending on influence of egocentrism and focalism on young people’s optimism bias and their perception of control. The results indicated students’ degree of control perceptions and optimism and realistic behaviors according to gender in terms of egocentrism and focalism differed. Key words: Optimism bias Unrealistic optimism Egocentrism Focalism
Future orientation optimism
INTRODUCTION
Perception of control
university, transfer from Vocational High Schools, 2 year universities and undergraduate programs) [3]. In addition, young people face many problems brought by education system in university such as adaptation to the new environment, deciding by themselves, taking responsibility and bearing the consequences, being successful at lessons, meeting accommodation needs and making friends [4]. All these have an effect on young people’s perception of control on possible risks in their future life, future-orientation optimism and life-events. Optimistic biases related with future life events were related to feelings of vulnerability or invulnerability to risky consequences [5]. Optimistic bias is commonly defined as the mistaken belief that one’s chances of experiencing a negative life event are lower (or a positive life event higher) than that of one’s peers. The bias was first demonstrated by Weinstein [13], who reported that
Youth is a pivotal time during life span of human being, during which patterns of adult behavior begin to be established. Youth today face several grave risks related to behaviors, such as physical, economical, psychological, social, performance which are common in this developmental period [1,2]. Turkey’s transition process from agricultural community to industrial community, integration with western world, economic and social problems, crisis in adopting modernization, influence by other cultures and societies via communication tools in globalizing world, urbanization and education problem, population increase, ideological and ethnic separations, political instability, unemployment, generation clashes and problems of these kind have a negative effect on university students, whose number is approximately 192.000 (excluding open-
Corresponding Author: Sengul Hablemitoglu, Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, College of Home Economics, Ankara University, Irfan Bastug Street, No.. 9, Aydinlikevler 06130, Ankara, Turkey
42
World Appl. Sci. J., 5 (1): 42-53, 2008
a majority of college students believed their chances of events such as divorce and having a drinking problem were lower than that of other students and their chances of events such as owning their own home and living past 80 years of age were higher than that of other students [6]. Because a majority of individuals in a group cannot be above (or below) the mean unless the distribution is highly skewed, these findings represented a bias at the level of the group. Other terms representing the same construct include “unrealistic optimism”, “illusion of invulnerability”, “illusion of unique invulnerability”, “optimism bias” and “personal fable”. It is also possible to be optimistically biased by being overconfident about the objective chances of experiencing a positive event or avoiding a before, optimistic bias has been more frequently defined using the comparative definition above due to greater methodological ease [7]. The optimistic biases are extremely robust and not limited by demographics such as age, sex, education or occupation [8]. However, there does appear to be a cultural difference, with members of cultures valuing independence, showing more optimistic bias than member of culture valuing interdependence [9]. Optimistic biases in personal risk perceptions are important because they may seriously hinder efforts to promote risk-reducing behaviors [10]. Individuals’ actual risks and their perception of their personal risk are distinctly different. Weinstein [11-13] show that people make comparative risk assessments in an egocentric manner, paying little attention to the risk status of others when asked to determine their own relative risk [11-13]. Weinstein originally labeled this phenomenon as “optimistic bias”. Weinstein’s research [13] which examined the role of optimism in college students is a classic study. Weinstein [13] showed that people tend to be unrealistically optimistic, thus demonstrate a cognitive error in judgment. Factors influencing the amount of optimistic bias evoked by different events and the mechanisms that produce this bias were examined [13]. In lay terms, individuals believe they are less vulnerable to risks than others. Optimistic bias is a robust finding and has been replicated in a variety of contexts, including especially physical/general health [14] (also social, psychological, functional/performance). The implications of unrealistic optimism in life events-related (future or current life events) domains of behaviour have long been of concern. Van der Pligt [15] has suggested that an illusion of relative invulnerability to risks might mean that people are less likely to embrace life improving behaviours: “If life events-related risks
primarily concern other people and not oneself there is no reason to adapt one’s behaviour” [15]. Taylor and Brown [16] have put forward the interesting thesis that optimism might often be actually very useful; that optimism is a sign of good functioning in life. Stressed people, it seems, have fewer illusions (for example, of control, or about the likelihood of possible positive or negative future events) than those who are not stressed. Taylor and Brown [16] suggest that positive illusions are a highly adaptive way of dealing with some negative ‘information’ from the environment [16]. Unrealistic optimism refers to tendency. People report that they are less likely than average person of their sex and age to experience a risk (or more likely than average person to experience a ‘positive life event’) [17]. For example whether applying for a job, vying for an “A” on a curved exam, or waging war, many of life’s most consequential pursuits are competitive in nature, therefore these are perceived as the risky life events [18]. There have been different explanations for unrealistic optimism phenomenon, some of them focusing on cognitive factors (hopes, fears) and some of them focusing on motivational factors (value, expectance, control) [17]. A number of factors have been suggested as determinants of unrealistic optimism. The explanations fall into two general categories: cognitive and motivational [19]. Cognitive Factors: Cognitive explanations of unrealistic optimism are based on the assumption that people make systematic information-processing errors when making relative risk assessments. These errors might stem from egocentrism [13,19] or from the use of cognitive heuristics such as “representativeness” and “availability” [13]. Egocentrism: When making comparative risk judgments, people may be aware of factors that reduce their own vulnerability but fail to recognize that others may have just as many factors in their own favor [13,19]. Therefore, making people aware of others’ reasons for feeling relatively invulnerable should decrease their optimistic bias. In support of this idea, Weinstein [13] found that providing such information to participants did decrease optimism. However, he also found that reduction in the bias was only temporary [13]. Further, Regan et al. [20] demonstrated that a lack of discrimination information is insufficient to explain the phenomenon; even when the compared other is someone about whom a great deal of information is known, such as a close friend, individuals are still optimistic [20]. 43
World Appl. Sci. J., 5 (1): 42-53, 2008
Motivational Factors: Motivational explanations of optimism are based on the notion that acknowledging the possibility that negative events will occur is anxiety provoking [21]. To reduce this anxiety, people use self-deceptive coping strategies such as denial; neglect to consider evidence relevant to other possible outcomes or unacceptation of the threat’s existence [13]. Anxiety reduction accounts for the findings that individuals are equally optimistic no matter who is the comparison standard, be it a stranger or a friend [20] and that individuals will choose a highly vulnerable comparison target if given the opportunity, a phenomenon called “downward comparison” [22]. In this case, selfassessments of individuals might have greater impact them competitor-assessments from focalism.
People have a sense of perceived control when they believe that, in general, personal action controls outcomes (internal locus of control) and they personally have the skills to enact those actions (self-efficacy). Thus perceived control can be decomposed in two elements (“there are effective responses for people in general” and “I can enact them”) or measured as composite belief (“I can take action to get what I want”) [25]. Personal control is both a belief that one possesses the ability to act and get desired outcomes (perceived control) and a behavioral orientation toward taking action to solve problems or deal with stress (control strategy). Most research has focused on perceived control, but there are also measures of active or passive controlrelated strategies, the self- reported tendency to take or not take action in the face of a problematic situation [26]. In this study we focus on gender differences in optimism. It is important to study individual differences in the influence of egocentrism and focalism (cognitive and motivational factors) on young people’s optimism and their perception of control which means “controllability of life”.
Focalism: Past experience with a negative event appears to decrease optimism [8,10]. While some people tend to assume the world is safe and meaningful, several negative life events reject these assumptions and the world becomes perceived as more dangerous [21]. Conversely, never having experienced a negative event seems to promote optimism. This may occur because people believe their past is predictive of their future [8]. If an outcome has not yet arisen in a person’s experience, they may feel “exempt” from it ever occurring. Focalism, broadly construed, is the tendency of people to focus on information relevant to one outcome and fail to consider conclusions relevant to other possible outcomes [23,24].
METHODS Sample: A questionnaire was devised to determine gender differences in the influence of egocentrism and focalism (cognitive and motivational factors) on young Turkish people’s optimism and their perception of control. Participants, who are students continuing their university education in Ankara University, were chosen by selecting proportional stratified random sample from different departments. In order to carry out the study, permission was taken from dean’s office. The questionnaire was administered to a total of 263 volunteers, consist of 127 young females and 136 young males. Participants were interviewed face to face and were informed that they could omit to answer any of items in the questionnaire form. The sample consisted of university students, 51.7% male and 48.3% female. The students are younger than 20 (53.6%). Rate of the university students in dormitory is 37.3%. In the purpose of university education, students come from different cities (57.8%). Rate of the students whose economic situation was evaluated as “good” is 60.8%. Most of the students were economically supported by their families (85.9%). Rate of the students receiving scholarship is 26.3%. Rate of the students who are economically supported by their relatives and who receive
Perceived Control: Furthermore, there is evidence that unrealistic optimism is positively related to ‘controllability’ related the perception of control (the more controllable the person’s exposure to the risk, the greater the degree of unrealistic optimism) and to the existence of stereotypes about those at risk (if stereotypes about ‘at risk’ people exist, the greater the degree of unrealistic optimism [17]. Perceived control, the perception that one can take action to get desired outcomes, consists of two parts: locus of control and self – efficacy. Locus of control refers to beliefs about the locus of reinforcements: whether or not people in general can get good outcomes and avoid bad through their own actions (internal locus of control) or whether external factors control these outcomes (external locus of control). Self efficacy refers to the perception that the self has the skills/abilities to enact these effective responses.
44
World Appl. Sci. J., 5 (1): 42-53, 2008
education loans is equal (7.2%). In addition, the rest has been earning money by working part-time (5.3%).
optimism scale - 6 items and perception of control scale – 10 items). On the other hand, unrealistic optimism and future orientation optimism basic scales in the questionnaire form was divided in two factors as “egocentrism” and “focalism” (Factor 1= EgoCENT, Factor 2= FoCAL). Questions providing the demographic structure of the participants are also included in the questionnaire. The study participants had approximately five minutes to response the questionnaire. After three scales used for the study have been tested of validity and reliability, data was interpreted and discussed. In order to test the reliability of questionnaire the findings were calculated by “Cronbach Alpha” as inner consistency coefficient. Each scales were found valid and reliable at the rate of 83-93% (Unrealistic optimism cronbach alpha: 83%, Future orientation optimism cronbach alpha: 91%, Perception of control cronbach alpha: 93%).
Questionnaire: Optimism bias can be measured in two different ways – either with the direct or the indirect method. The direct method asks the study participants to assess how much more or less they will experience relevant future life events. The indirect method, on the other hand, asks the study participants to assess their own probability of future life events. According to Otten and van der Plight [27], the preferred method of measuring unrealistic optimism is the indirect method, as it has been found to produce less unrealistic optimism and appears to be a more stable measure than direct measures of unrealistic optimism [27,28]. Questions in this study were asked with a five-point answering scale of Lickert type varying from 1-“strongly agree” to 5-“completely disagree” and the middle point of the scale had a neither/nor option that it means “no idea”. Lickert type scale was used to acquire the data pertaining to the optimism biases and control perception of the young people included in the scope of the study. Therefore, a highly structured questionnaire was used to assess gender differences in the influence of egocentrism and focalism (cognitive and motivational factors) on young people’s optimism and their perception of control. Previous studies regarding the optimism biases consist of unrealistic and future orientation and perception of control have been examined during the formation of the questionnaire. It is based on the items which include “Future Life Events Inventory” , “New Personel Fable Scales ” and “Consideration of Future Consequences Scales” carried out by Grunewald in study [5]. Firstly, because the future life events inventory scale is the other self-reported measurement, inventory explores a perception of optimism by examining how participants calibrate the future probability of experiencing positive and negative future life events related to themselves and other students. Also, items from new personal fable scales were selected to assess a disposition toward entertaining a personal fable by tapping feelings of personal uniqueness, competence and invulnerability related to unrealistic optimism depend on egocentrism and focalism factors. Finally, items consisting of “Consideration of Future Consequences Scales” are judging the desirability and perceived risks of consequence having an impact on the choice of decisions focus on perceived control which means “controllability of current or possible future life”. The questionnaire of our study consisted of fivepoint Lickert scale including 22 items of three scales (unrealistic optimism scale - 6 items, future orientation
Statistical Procedure: The information obtained as a result of the study has been compiled in a database formed with The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS - 10.00). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic data. Firstly, the impact of two factors related to young people’s optimism was examined with “independentsamples t test”, it was used to define the gender differences in that..05,.01,.001 levels were used throughout the analysis. As a second analysis “spearman’s rank order correlation analysis” was used for the interaction among gender differences depending on influence of egocentrism and focalism on young people’s optimism bias and their perception of control. Shortly, statistical technique adaptation was considered satisfactory. Gender variable found to have significantly different affect on the results. RESULTS In the study, the effect of gender on unrealistic and future orientation and life-events controlling perceptions of university students according to egocentrism and focalism factors was analyzed with “t test”; and university students test results of average scores of answers were given in Table 1, 2 and 3, separately for scales of male and female students. Unrealistic Optimism Factor 1: Egocentrism: In the study, no difference was found between average scores of answers of female and male university students in terms of “unrealistic optimism” and “egocentrism. It was striking that the 45
World Appl. Sci. J., 5 (1): 42-53, 2008 Table 1: Gender Differences in Unrealistic Optimism by EgoCENT and FoCAL Optimism Bias 1. Unr-OPT t EgoCENT
9.54
9.64
-0.32
I can try many things for the sake of being different
2.62
2.80
-1.17
I believe that I can do anything I think
3.48
3.57
-0.63
I think that if I want something much, I can reach that
3.44
2.72
1.21
FoCAL
8.83
8.86
-0.11
Sometimes it is necessary to tell lies
3.35
3.40
-0.38
For taking some decisions, it may be necessary to toss up
2.51
2.35
0.98
Deciding quickly is an indicator of being clever.
2.97
3.10
-0.88
Unr-OPT = Unrealistic Optimism, EgoCENT = Egocentrism, FoCAL = Focalism Table 2: Gender Differences in Future Orientation Optimism by EgoCENT and FoCAL Optimism Bias 2. FutOri-OPT t EgoCENT
10.23
9.86
1.32*
I can not work under supervision of another person even if it is a very high-profit job
3.77
3.64
0.90
I think the fact that smoking cause lung cancer is being exaggerated.
4.09
3.54
3.11**
In the future, I will be the most popular person in the class.
2.37
2.68
FoCAL
0.11
9.80
I think I will be unemployed even after university of master's degree
2.46
2.51
I believe that going to school is important for my future
4.37
4.20
1.44*
If I do not receive my expected marks, I protest my examination paper.
3.28
3.09
1.18
-2.10 1.27* -0.33
*p
